Bowline and Eskimo bowline, just the same

[X1]

   I believe I know why you find it difficult to "see" the obvious here. You have tied the other-hand "Eskimo" bowline you show, where the difference between the "tail over" and the "tail under" forms is not so evident. ( I do not specify the "right-hand" and the "left-hand" forms of the "Eskimo" bowline here, because that does not matter in our discussion, and it may even blur the issue. The only important thing is that, in the "Eskimo" bowline you show, the continuation of the tail-side eye leg goes from the other side of the standing part, than in the "Eskimo" bowline I show. )
   See the attached pictures, for the ( one of the two ) "other-hand" variations .   

[X1]

   All I am saying is that in the photographs you have presented (tied around a nail) the tail would appear to be under more "grip" than a wider loop stance (tied around a bollard)  would actually give.

  I am glad you are saying it now - because that is not what you was saying till now.    Of course, the tail would not only "appear", but it would "be" under more "grip" in a narrower loop than in a wider one ! That is why I have shown the pictures I have shown, so everybody would be able to "see" the difference clearly - but that does not mean that there is no difference in the wider loops ! 
  When you will tie and try all the four forms of the "Eskimo" bowline a number of times, in narrow and/or wide loop configurations, you will see what I mean. Then, you would be able to chose which one to present in your booklet - because you do not need to show more than one, of course ! And the same is true for the Gleipnir binder, where we have also a number of different variations, albeit of a less important nature.

[Ruby]

elements that are not shown in the final picture : the FINGERS of the knot tyer !

in Ashley's picture you can find  the FINGERS of the knot tyer 
maybe that's best for showing tying method. though very few.

  places the tail UNDER the continuation of the eye leg, in direct contact with the standing part s first curve

I think I got it. so, this is your knot theory? sounds interesting and reasonable. good lesson learned.


Ashley said left-hand bowline #1034.5 is distinctly inferior, without mention the reason.

maybe this is the reason. 
in common bowline #1010, the tail is locked by the standing part s first curve,
and in left-hand bowline #1034.5, the tail is NOT locked by the standing part s first curve



so , if I change a  left-hand bowline to an Eskimo bwl,
the tail is then naturally ocked by the standing part s first curve, no more dressing


as this pic,



if form the loop by connecting B and C at below(blue), and A is the SPart,
then it's a left-hand bowline.
the tail is NOT locked by the standing part?s first curve

if form the loop by connecting A and C at top (yellow) , and B is the SPart,
then it's an Eskimo bowline.
and the tail is naturally locked by the standing part's first curve


right?

[Ruby]

...
when you publish a series of pictures, you keep the same orientation of the standing end
...

well, I rotated it just to match your picture

I just take picture by phone, hope it's clear.


so to form Eskimo by tying it as a common bowline, careful dressing is needed,
 keeping in mind that the tail should be locked by the SPart's first curve.


first, tie it as a common bowline



second, arrange the tail to top, near under the  SPart's first curve.
this is somehow like difference between 1408 and 1409. little difference, big change.



finally , tighten it , by pulling the SPart and the tail leg.



back:

[Luca]

Hi Ruby,

Bowline and Eskimo Bowline,just (topologically) the same?
I thought (since one have to "cut and paste" as you described in reply # 2) no, but someone has proved the contrary (fourth pic):

http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4276.msg26587#msg26587

If you ideally lengthen the tail of the common Bowline on the left of the fourth pic till  it goes UNDER and longer the eye visible there, then you can realize that, starting from this set, you can get an Eskimo that will have a mirror (and left-handed / # 1034 1/2) version of the knot's nub of the initial common bowline,even if you do not have access to the ends of the rope!

                                                                                                                           Bye!

[X1]

in Ashley's picture you can find  the FINGERS of the knot tyer 

  Those are not my fingers !  I do not tie this knot this way... That was my point : it seems to me that every knot tyer ties the same knots by different ways, so we can not really say what is "the tying method" he follows... This "tying method" is a very complicated thing, that involves moving parts, motion, time. How are we supposed to compare "tying" something, when we still find difficulties to compare one "tied" something with another "tied" something ?

right?

Right - and ropes of right colours, too !  Those dark spots on your "red" and "orange" rope were destroying the contour of the lines...

[X1]

   As we are talking about the "Eskimo" bowlines here, I would like to remind/mention another "similar" loop, that is post-eye-tiable AND tiable-in-the-bight - a rare combination, that has recently been applied in the Luca s bowline and the two pairs of the pet TIB bowlines presented at (1). It is the almost forgotten, as such, close relative of the "Eskimo" bowlines, the ABoK#1051. I believe it can be considered as another, just a little more complex variation of the "Eskimo" bowlines, indeed. Although it is not more secure or more stable than they are, it is interesting and useful nevertheless, because it a TIB eyeknot - and because it is probably the simpler TIB bowline presented by Ashley. ( It is also the simplest TIB bowline I am aware of...) ( See the attached pictures).
 
1. http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=4354.0